EBook Creation Process 101

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

And what would be that fantastic xml format that isn't crappy, is wildly used, has an editor that people can easily use and is feature rich?

Hitch

[skreutzer]

Whichever you prefer: XHTML, DocBook, TEI, ODT, or your own custom one. Anyway, in the meantime, jeffcb mentioned that the source format is *.doc. As those source documents only contain raw text when they arrive (or their formatting gets stripped), it would make sense to put that text into a layout-agnostic but semantic format as such work takes place anyway, so all target formats could be generated from that. Just to be very clear: if jeffcb would decide to construct the EPUBs as suggested, I don't see why one wouldn't generate a PDF from that very EPUB or XHTML files.

[dickloraine]

I just don't really understand why you hate docx. If used correctly, the output is not crappy. If you use styles semantically you have that too. And it is the defacto standard for creating source files. It has many advanced features that help writing and editing. Automatically creating tocs, indexing, footnotes, citation, outline view, commting and following changes by different users, spell checker, thesaurus etc.
Instead of inventing something new, I think something like Toxaris add-in is much more usefull. One benefit of using such a wildly used format is that there are many programs that can work with it and that it will be usefull in the future. Even if it sometimes will be obsolet, there will be converters.

[rubeus]

The problem with docx is it is reaaaaaally complicated. If you start just by looking at it you will not figure out how it works. Start reading the documentaiotn will take a year. And another year to understand it. After two years you forgot why you started to deal with docx.#
If someone is really strict with docx there might be some ways to get a good ebook from it. But most writers arent. They are not using styles, heading are big and blue instead having the style header, tabs are done by spaces and page breaks by adding returns.

[dickloraine]

Okay and how on earth do you want to bring these writers - who doesn't even use styles and format like they want - to use something like markdown , docbook, latex etc.? Why should a user try to understand any format? I understand the concerns from a developer side, but as a user I am only interested if I can use something. And there are things like Toxaris add-in for eBooks, inDesign can import docx (I have no knowledge about it and how good the import is) for print books (I think this is what most publishers do) etc. How much trouble some of this is, depends from the input. But that is true for everything. I just don't understand the constant bashing of word. If used correctly, the output is usable, if not, you would have the same problem with other programs. Imagine someone writing his eBook with a wysiwyg html-editor, making direct formating. That would be junk too.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I just don't really understand why you hate docx. If used correctly, the output is not crappy.

Easy question. He doesn't like it because it is from an evil company in his mind. I agree it could be better, but it is open, free to use and XML-based.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by rubeus

The problem with docx is it is reaaaaaally complicated. If you start just by looking at it you will not figure out how it works. Start reading the documentaiotn will take a year. And another year to understand it. After two years you forgot why you started to deal with docx.#
If someone is really strict with docx there might be some ways to get a good ebook from it. But most writers arent. They are not using styles, heading are big and blue instead having the style header, tabs are done by spaces and page breaks by adding returns.

Even a typewriter has a tab key. A Word processor is not a typewriter. I do not believe styles are too hard to use. The writers are often just lazy. These same writers won't use markups either or at least won't standardize on them. However, there are many word processors that are easier to use than the latest word. The old word was IMHO easier to use. Atlantis Word Processor is easier to use and supports docx format. But styles are actually simple to use if they are on the menu as dropdowns. And spelling is easy to check if you use it but of course you can (and do) seem to ignore it.

Dale

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by rubeus

The problem with docx is it is reaaaaaally complicated. If you start just by looking at it you will not figure out how it works. Start reading the documentaiotn will take a year. And another year to understand it. After two years you forgot why you started to deal with docx.#
If someone is really strict with docx there might be some ways to get a good ebook from it. But most writers arent. They are not using styles, heading are big and blue instead having the style header, tabs are done by spaces and page breaks by adding returns.

It is complicated, sure. Considering what it needs to support, that is not that strange. Absolutly, it could be optimized for sure. If you start with a small, standard document, it can be read and understood easily enough. Add complexity and reread. The are various sites that explain the tags well enough. My major gripe is that there is no heredity between the styles and layout. If for example italic is part of the style, you will not see the italic tag in the body. That makes parsing a lot more difficulty. I understand the reasoning well enough and partially I agree, but it is still a nuisance. Two years is really silly.

Also, even if styles are not used but documents are formated the wrong way, a good ebook can still be created, it might take more work though but a lot less than transferring a document to InDesign and redo the layout.

[rubeus]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Two years is really silly.

I know what i'm talking about, i' creating xlsx from scratch with formatting, several worksheets, pivot tables and graphs.

In addition it might be a good idea to check your batteries in your irony detector. They seems to be low on charge.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by rubeus

I know what i'm talking about, i' creating xlsx from scratch with formatting, several worksheets, pivot tables and graphs.

In addition it might be a good idea to check your batteries in your irony detector. They seems to be low on charge.

No irony here on my side... And we were talking about the DOCX format, not XLSX. That is a whole different beast. That one is a lot more complex, since Excel itself is a lot more complex by nature.

Two years for DOCX is silly.

[rubeus]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

No irony here on my side...

But on my side.

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Two years for DOCX is silly.

Ok, you get to be right, and I get to have peace and quiet.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by rubeus

But on my side.

So sorry, I indeed did not detect that...

Originally Posted by rubeus

Ok, you get to be right, and I get to have peace and quiet.

I am sorry I apparently disturbed your peace. That was not my intention, it has been a complicated week and I am not as sharp as usual. Time for bed I guess...

[BetterRed]

Cripes, I've been learning Word for more years that I suspect some folks here have been on the planet. Firstly DOS & Xenix, on Mac for a while and on Windows since early 90's.

I'm still finding things that have been been there for decades - Quickparts, and the Thesaurus (Shift/F7) come to mind. And I for one 'love' the Ribbon, I could never find things in the without-rhyme-or-reason menus - I avoid pointing devices, so the button bars were useless for me.

BR

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Cripes, I've been learning Word for more years that I suspect some folks here have been on the planet. Firstly DOS & Xenix, on Mac for a while and on Windows since early 90's.

I'm still finding things that have been been there for decades - Quickparts, and the Thesaurus (Shift/F7) come to mind. And I for one 'love' the Ribbon, I could never find things in the without-rhyme-or-reason menus - I avoid pointing devices, so the button bars were useless for me.

BR

There are absolutely brilliant toots online for Word, ranging from its earliest incarnations to the wildly popular 2003, to the newer. I send a lot of "noobs," by which I mean, new to the idea of using Word correctly, to this for the very, very basics: http://shaunakelly.com/topic/word/concepts and then, for those that really want to power-use it, hither: http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide/ .

That guy, the latter? His stuff is freaking AWESOME. His writings on using Styles are definitive, IMHO.

Offered not really for anyone in this thread, but for those that may stumble across this later...

Hitch

[skreutzer]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Instead of inventing something new

Actually, DOCX is the invention of something new for the sake of doing so, because
ODT came first, is standardized, cleaner, and is also supported by Microsoft Word. Instead of embracing ODT, Microsoft made up DOCX with artificial quirks in it, persuading it to get it accepted as a different standard conflicting with ODT. As the European Union forced Microsoft to make their format more open, DOCX is at least an improvement over DOC, but it seems to be designed to still make it hard to make use of it without Microsoft Word.

Regarding the only software that can fully deal with DOCX, in my opinion, it would be of great help if there would be some kind of “book mode”, which would disable direct formatting and present styles as the main mechanism for markup. Per default, Word's GUI is configured for composing office documents, which is unfortunate for writing long form texts. And, let's not forget about the fact, that Microsoft Word is still in the year of the Lord 2015 unable to export well-formed XHTML (not even talking about valid output), so that people like Toxaris, Hitch and now jeffcb too have to invest valuable lifetime for compensating the lack of cooperation on the side of Microsoft.

I don't object to Microsoft per se, I object to what they do and don't.